From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Subject: Re: [Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH v4 16/20] ASoC: SOF: Add PCI device support Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 17:59:16 -0400 Message-ID: <5d4f7d94-4806-fd9a-687b-75c428348779@linux.intel.com> References: <20190321161055.26582-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20190321161055.26582-17-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20190328174819.GM9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <20190328174918.GN9224@smile.fi.intel.com> <9f48d5e7-8a95-db2f-0605-b15e45670ce0@linux.intel.com> <20190328220826.GQ9224@smile.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: "Alsa-devel" To: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org, Daniel Baluta , liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, vkoul@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Alan Cox List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On 4/1/19 3:05 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Mon, 01 Apr 2019 19:26:13 +0200, > Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >> >> On 3/29/19 8:30 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >>> On 3/28/19 6:08 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 02:21:47PM -0400, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SND_SOC_SOF_EDISON) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can we use Merrifield / mrfld instead of EDISON in entire series? >>>>> >>>>> we could, but I don't know of any other platform than Edison to run the >>>>> code. I know it's less accurate from an architecture perspective >>>>> but felt >>>>> Merrifield was confusing for non-Intel folks. >>>> >>>> We use Merrifield across the entire kernel. It would be confusing >>>> other way around. >>>> So, please, change it to be consistent with the rest of the kernel. >>> >>> Since this is the only comment so far, I'll add a follow-up patch. >> >> Discard this reply, I'll address this in an update to address >> Takashi's comments as well. >> >> >> Actually I need feedback from reviewers/maintainers: I could either >> provide an update addressing just comments from Andy and Takashi, or >> provide a larger update that would include known fixes and >> simplifications from SOF contributors on github, e.g. on the IPC. We >> have about 15-20 delta patches that were accepted on github, not sure >> what the preference is, just addressing comments so far or getting the >> latest and greatest patches squashed? > > IMO, one or two more whole patchset refresh would be still worth. > Then we can merge the base, and go for refinement with each small > change, hopefully in this merge cycle. > > For the resubmission, please give me a bit more time. I had no time > for further review in the last week due to completely other > businesses (the office room movement, etc)... Sure, I am understand how time consuming this can be and how 'reviewer fatigue' can occur. We can add a couple of additional changes, e.g. for the IPC and some resource management while you (and others) go over the current patchset and tentatively resubmit next week, would that work?